And then there were two... (Boston, Newton: for rent, unemployment rate, buy)

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Ah, so have government not listen to their constituents and people living in their communities and instead dictate centrally planned policies that they say are better for the greater good, all while creating even larger nest egg profits for the already incredibly rich.

The irony is dark.

How is that ironic? The question was "what should Boston do if it wants to lower rents". Boston will do whatever the community votes to do, bound by the laws of the state and the country. If someone asked me how to lose weight, I'd say "eat less and exercise more". I wouldn't expect them to come back and tell me how rich it was that I was here trying to control what they ate and how they spent their time.

I'm sure if you asked ever renter in Boston (who make a majority of voters) if they'd like to pay no rent ever, they'd answer enthusiastically "yes!". I don't think that makes abolishing rent entirely a realistic (or even legal) long-term plan for the city.

[WestieWhitie]

Howdy neighbor! I don't like the color of your car, better have it re-painted or I'll have it crushed! I don't like the size of your dog, better get a bigger one or I'll have it euthanized! I don't like your jeans, better wear shorts or I'll have you placed under house arrest!

Sounds pretty absurd, doesn't it? And if it does why should you, some clown three blocks down from me, be able to tell me what I can and cannot build on my property?

Originally Posted by timberline742

Ah, so have government not listen to their constituents and people living in their communities and instead dictate centrally planned policies that they say are better for the greater good, all while creating even larger nest egg profits for the already incredibly rich.

The irony is dark.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Kim Janey being called a "black power" mayor over Andrea Campbell? Wow.

[thebruiser500]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

How is that ironic? The question was "what should Boston do if it wants to lower rents". Boston will do whatever the community votes to do, bound by the laws of the state and the country. If someone asked me how to lose weight, I'd say "eat less and exercise more". I wouldn't expect them to come back and tell me how rich it was that I was here trying to control what they ate and how they spent their time.

I'm sure if you asked ever renter in Boston (who make a majority of voters) if they'd like to pay no rent ever, they'd answer enthusiastically "yes!". I don't think that makes abolishing rent entirely a realistic (or even legal) long-term plan for the city.

Voting doesn’t matter really. The People voted Trump in but then there was so much fraud it didn’t count. Plus whole bureaucracy was working to stop Trump and the people’s will.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

How is that ironic? .

The irony is that he was just railing against Mao/Communism, and then went to promote a centrally planned "for the betterment of society" and not listening to constituents policy making process.

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Howdy neighbor! I don't like the color of your car, better have it re-painted or I'll have it crushed! I don't like the size of your dog, better get a bigger one or I'll have it euthanized! I don't like your jeans, better wear shorts or I'll have you placed under house arrest!

Sounds pretty absurd, doesn't it? And if it does why should you, some clown three blocks down from me, be able to tell me what I can and cannot build on my property?

Doesn't sound absurd if I bought in a HOA that has such rules.

Just like what I can do with my property, or not, isn't absurd if I bought in a place with zoning.

I, personally, realize that private property rights aren't absolute. I can't install a nuclear reactor in my condo, or operate a commercial machine shop or night club in my garage. What I do impacts others.

[WestieWhitie]

Fair enough. In other news tinfoil is buy one, get one free at Walgreens right now!

Originally Posted by thebruiser500

Voting doesn’t matter really. The People voted Trump in but then there was so much fraud it didn’t count. Plus whole bureaucracy was working to stop Trump and the people’s will.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

The irony is that he was just railing against Mao/Communism, and then went to promote a centrally planned "for the betterment of society" and not listening to constituents policy making process.

Mao and Stalin both acted in the name of the people at the expense of the individual. I think if someone says, "don't do this popular thing because it's communist and it won't work, do this other thing that is decidedly un-communist and will work" that's not ironic.

I think someone should be able to answer a question about "what should be done" without then being accused of being a megalomaniacal dictator for offering advice on what they think should be done.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Mao and Stalin both acted in the name of the people at the expense of the individual. I think if someone says, "don't do this popular thing because it's communist and it won't work, do this other thing that is decidedly un-communist and will work" that's not ironic.

I think someone should be able to answer a question about "what should be done" without then being accused of being a megalomaniacal dictator for offering advice on what they think should be done.

He called Wu, Comrade Wu and a Maoist. Then he , in short, proposed what he was railing against (ignoring the individual(s) for what he claims is best for society), just benefitting another party. Same game. That's the irony, he is effectively proposing what said he is opposing.

Perhaps you don't see it that way. That's fine. While I don't like NIMBYism a lot of the time, I think leadership should respect the wishes of what people in a community wish to see their neighborhoods look like. I've lived in places where there was no or minimal zoning. It rarely ends well, and it would be horrific in a dense place like coastal New England.

[WestieWhitie]

Centrally planned? Comrade, what's centrally planned about removing the red tape and letting people do as they please with their property, as long as it's within reason? And no, I'm not talking about a nuclear power plant, I'm talking about a NIMBY herd not letting me raze a decrepit two car garage built in 1960 on a double lot and replace it with a six unit condo building because mah historic garage!

I have this funny feeling you're actually a slumlord masquerading as "progressive" salivating over the possibility of Wu's East SF social experiment driving your property values into stratosphere. Either that or you work for Comrade chairWuman.

Originally Posted by timberline742

The irony is that he was just railing against Mao/Communism, and then went to promote a centrally planned "for the betterment of society" and not listening to constituents policy making process.



Doesn't sound absurd if I bought in a HOA that has such rules.

Just like what I can do with my property, or not, isn't absurd if I bought in a place with zoning.

I, personally, realize that private property rights aren't absolute. I can't install a nuclear reactor in my condo, or operate a commercial machine shop or night club in my garage. What I do impacts others.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by id77

What would be your solution to the problem? Lower density housing (triple-deckers and brownstones), as you already said, would only be replaced by luxury towers. You want examples of new construction? Have you looked at Seaport or Inkblock or Fenway/Longwood? TONS of new construction. Did it help housing costs? Nope. Heck, they've been building up around T stations too -- Alewife, Forest Hills, even in JP. Lots of new, denser mid-rises. Did those help housing costs? Nope.

Where do you get that it didn't help housing costs, or that things wouldn't be significantly worse had it not been for this development? Increased inventory = lower prices, even if it's "luxury units" being built. This forum always has a hard time understanding that.

Originally Posted by id77

How do you create housing affordable to the masses in a land area (be it SF or Boston) where the land values and demand are so high that there's a line of people happy to make 7 figure offers on housing?

The problem isn't really the city, it's the suburbs. Boston can't do it all on its own, when it makes up but a tiny fraction of the metro's land area. Boston had a dearth of residential development until rent control was abolished and it took years to recover. We are perhaps still seeing negative effects of it, such as deferred property maintenance. But of course those of us from the area understand this, and how the 80s/much of the 90s are not a road we want to go back down again.